ISaW Game, epic style

[epic]

RE: Loyalty.  We have also found that Questionable troops have been useful on more than one occasion due to that engagement bonus.  That being said, if they LOSE a fight and go to a 5 morale, the chance of desertion/mutiny means a real threat in losing these troops.  We've had this happen a few times now, to great effect.  The 9th Regulans in the FWL lost an entire battalion to mutiny and went merc, as well as a good chunk of their support.

[The Purist]

 :) Barring "honours of war", most [q] battalions coming out of a losing battle don't have to worry about desertion. Being disbanded for armour replacement points is probably a more common fate.   xp

[epic]

:) Barring "honours of war", most [q] battalions coming out of a losing battle don't have to worry about desertion. Being disbanded for armour replacement points is probably a more common fate.   xp

Ah.  There's the rub; we're mostly doing honours of war.  Except the Dracs.  It was a requirement that, barring some type of amazing feat by their opponents that was "impressive" (amazing dice rolls or some particular tactic that worked really well), the Dracs are not allowed to give honours of war.  After 3028, there will be NO honours of war ever given to mercs either, no matter what.  A minor scenario adjustment for us.   So far, the Drac player has been fine with this.  The other players have been too. 

[epic]

RE: Commerce raiding/patrols. 

I am curious about your pattern of patrols and commerce raiding.  We have found that a salient into the other person's territory is especially handy for commerce raiding, as it often requires additional patrols (and therefore rp) to cover afflicted areas.  Examples: Galtor Thumb, St Ives (Tikonov not so much, due to the fact that forces are so concentrated near Terra that a single patrol covers a lot of territory)

Meanwhile, patrols seem to be best NOT right on the border, but often an interstellar hex (or two) behind the front lines.  This also makes patrols less prone to being engaged by your enemy, due to that extra jump distance. 

[epic]

oh, and post going probably on Wednesday for turns thru to turn 18.  Heh. 

[The Purist]

Yup, a salient can be a pain in the backside but as you suggest, a Patrol set up behind the front can overlap the salient as well as cover the front. In fact,  they are safer behind the front or stacked with another command for security.

The problem with a Commerce Raid in a salient is that it is vulnerable to counterattack. It will suck up RPs for combat supply while it's effects are comparatively easy to block with patrols. One can still deploy a command on any target of value and engaging the salient will stack up fatigue, and casualties, very quickly.

By the way, the Galtor Thumb Commerce Raider is easily countered by the Cussar Patrol.  8)

[epic]

Yup, a salient can be a pain in the backside but as you suggest, a Patrol set up behind the front can overlap the salient as well as cover the front. In fact,  they are safer behind the front or stacked with another command for security.

The problem with a Commerce Raid in a salient is that it is vulnerable to counterattack. It will suck up RPs for combat supply while it's effects are comparatively easy to block with patrols. One can still deploy a command on any target of value and engaging the salient will stack up fatigue, and casualties, very quickly.

By the way, the Galtor Thumb Commerce Raider is easily countered by the Cussar Patrol.  8)

Ah.  See, this is where we agree to disagree on our experiences again!  Commerce raider more sucks up the OTHER guy's RPs than anything else; reason being that patrols have to be in place in all areas to block the possibility of raids.  Raids are fired off by the attacker just often enough, or in preparation for full raids (that extra +1 to insertion) that full patrols on the border have to be maintained.  Incidentally, this is a major advantage for the FWL and CC if Kapteyn exists, as they are not activating patrols on that border (and thus not spending rp on the patrols)

In this light, a salient often has to be covered by an extra patrol or two.  Meanwhile, due to stacking patrols behind the lines, the salient can still usually be part of regular patrols.
Example: Galtor thumb.  The salient means that the DC has a longer border to cover with patrols, requiring additional RP expenditure of said patrols (and fatigue).   - basically, the salient forces the DC to field an extra patrol to cover their 2 hex range.  By what we can see, the FS/DC border, the FS has 40 possibly threatened hexes to cover; the DC has 47. Admittedly, some of those hexes are pointless to cover; 1834 for the DC, for instance, or 1740/1840. Good placement of patrols MAY be able to mitigate this, but then also may become predictable. 
Note also that Commerce Raid does not indicate under the rules that it generates fatigue, only combat supply.  So the patrols get tired... but the Raider does not. 

Oddly enough, we are finding that Patrols, not Commerce Raid, are leaving people open to counterattack.  Specifically... locating patrols that are active in an area, via Espionage Military Operations and Espionage unit, and then doing Battle with a Naval engagement to wipe out the aero elements entirely of the patrol.  So again... the complete reverse of your experience I think.  Because commerce raiding is sporadic, it's far harder to pin down whereas patrols either have to have 2 (or more) units at least covering the same area, which again means that its easier to figure out if/when they will be the patrol that round.  Cycling 3 or more in a given area is difficult... and often indicates a build up of forces as well. 

[worktroll]

RE: Loyalty.  We have also found that Questionable troops have been useful on more than one occasion due to that engagement bonus.  That being said, if they LOSE a fight and go to a 5 morale, the chance of desertion/mutiny means a real threat in losing these troops.  We've had this happen a few times now, to great effect.  The 9th Regulans in the FWL lost an entire battalion to mutiny and went merc, as well as a good chunk of their support.

I keep getting a little glow whenever I see the system working how we intended it to. Note - I didn't do combat rules, but I'm the closest to an active boardmember who was involved. Shoulders of giants, etc. ;)

[The Purist]

Ah.  See, this is where we agree to disagree on our experiences again!  Commerce raider more sucks up the OTHER guy's RPs than anything else; reason being that patrols have to be in place in all areas to block the possibility of raids.  Raids are fired off by the attacker just often enough, or in preparation for full raids (that extra +1 to insertion) that full patrols on the border have to be maintained.  ...

You folks have definitely gone in a different direction.  :o Patrols do not need to be constant just as commerce raiders do not need to be turned on all the time. The only time a commerce raid is truly effective if it catches minor/major/(district) capitals without coverage or a Patrol. Every House has enough commands to place at least one on the frontier targets and they need only be 50% of the raiders PV. Properly placed a commerce raid may only have a handful of "other" planets to affect, while paying full combat supply for the privilege (say 44-56 RP). This effect is lessened further if a nearby Patrol covers even a few additional hexes.

For example,  the Capellans have just five (5) patrols covering almost all of their border, with a sixth in central reserve. These "roam" one or two hexes per turn so they are never in the same place unless protected by what we call the "1 + 1 Doctrine" - one command plus a small command (merc). This undermines espionage attempts to locate them, deters headhunters and quick strikes to knock out patrols. To be honest,  a Patrol is not that worthwhile a target for espionage as the money is better used defending factories, spotting build ups,  stealing tech, discovering new factory sites, etc.  Espionage and Spec/Ops cost can easily run 200 - 300 RP without even looking for a single command. Trying to find one that moves every turn and has its own defensive espionage coverage would cost far more than the RPs you deny the opponent and then you have to pay the combat supply for the raiders. It's all about the balance sheet (which mimics real world industrial warfare quite well,  actually)   ;)

<Edit: considering espionage results are always a turn late this means that even if you find a Patrol during turn one, you can't attack that location until turn two and by then the Patrol may have moved elsewhere. You could could try to guess it location and strike but,... >>

In this light, a salient often has to be covered by an extra patrol...<snip>

This is only true if you think you have to prevent the loss of every RP,  which is not the case. You only need to reduce the loss below a certain level of the enemy's expense. The decision to be made is how much? 25%? 50? Note you can reduce fatique by the use of RPs so patrols do not have to exhaust themselves.

As above,  roving patrols and defended valuable hard points can make any sort of raiding problematic. We have seen entire campaigns launched with the purpose of disrupting the frontier and then raiding can be more effective,... at least until the equilibrium is restored. Rinse and repeat.

[epic]

Mmmm.  Roving patrols are not so much a thing for us; the spreadsheet and bottom line (as well as fatigue) have kept the players from moving their units as much as that.  Spending RP to combat fatigue is, interestingly, how the players that have Periphery pirates to worry about are doing it. 

Also, the difference in using simplified raids vs the more detailed combat way you are doing so has some bearing I think.  With the amount of raids in our game (mostly done by mercs), the extra +1 for insertion (even against the -2 for active patrol) makes a big difference for possible raid successes.  It's what allowed a successful disruption raid on Tikonov, for instance. The icing on top is the loss of income from "other" worlds if an active patrol is not there.   Meanwhile, raids that steal the unit supplies of ground units become quite feasible. 

That being said, we don't have the specialized commands going as much as you do either from your campaign notes; so merc units are the choice for either commerce raider or Patrol missions to reduce costs where they can (and also for raiding missions).  This saves bigger Combat commands as the Hammer of invasions, while mercs are fitting very well into the raider role.   Using full Combat Commands for patrol/raid missions is usually a misuse of resources, as you have noted.  It occasionally pays off (using an Elite, Light unit on a raid is great with the simple system) but usually, the Combat Supply RP cost is just too high when that unit could be better used elsewhere. 

[The Purist]

Well, in my opinion,  if you are still denying defending garrisons their fighters you are drastically handicapping the defence and making the job for the raiders too easy. Tikonov,  for example,  rates 300 PV and in the Capellan's case this allows 2 wings each of light,  medium and heavy fighters. Raiding Tikonov is,  and should be, a major challenge and defences should need to be worn down substantially before two companies could launch a raid much less shutdown the entire planet for three months.

Detailed combat also adds a more realistic feel to the effort (BF or SBF).

Tikonov,  however, is an extreme example. A minor industrial world has only 100 PV plus the wings belonging to the command stationed there as well as the PV allowed from the Patrol, if one is in range. This makes raids challenging but not impossible.  :thumbsup:

[The Purist]

This rule set regarding Espionage and Spec Ops are some of best in ISaW. They add a depth to the strategic campaign without bogging the game down with too much "chrome".

Intel Operations Phase

These rules are a great addition to ISaW and add a depth to the strategic level that the IO rules were lacking. It was also an excellent choice to have the results of espionage and sabotage operation revealed ‘after the fact’. Intel is rarely ‘real time’ and the rules are structured in such a way that players must commit significant resources to ‘building a picture’ of the enemy side of the hill before knowing what is going on. This makes it impossible to, for example, ‘Scout Industry’ in the intel phase to find a new factory and then jump that new facility with an industrial/infrastructure raid or invasion to destroy the factory the same turn. The same goes for tracking units or attempts to steal tech – advanced ground work is necessary before making any strikes by the troops or Spec Ops teams. For the most part the rules are very well done but I will point a couple of areas that have caused us some questions below.

Propaganda Operations

The biggest question we have is with the Propaganda Ops as they seem almost a guessing game. If you Disseminate Foreign or Domestic Disinformation (or even accurate information) that is not part of a target House’s own intel ops then it may be immediately obvious that it is propaganda. For example, if the FWL arranges to leak that the 1st and 5th Sword of Light have moved to Proserpina and the FS is not actually looking for them (Esp-Troop Location), or looking at Proserpina (Esp-Planetary Forces), or at military ops (Esp-Military Operations) in the area then the operation immediately stands out as propaganda. With a difficulty ratings of 4 and 5 the money for Propaganda might be better used elsewhere. Then again, perhaps we have missed something in the intended subtlety of the rules.

Espionage

Despite a few minor issues the rules are very much worth the learning. A well timed sabotage of communications, transportation or a successful system reconnaissance can make all the difference in a campaign for a planet. Establishing ‘agents in place’ is also a valuable tool, for both short and long game effects on espionage operations. Mole Hunting becomes popular weekend sport for aristocrats within the intel services.

Espionage operations focused on planetary forces and scouting industry is a versatile offensive op that opens the doors to more damaging sabotage or black ops. Espionage technology was a big hit until players learned to defend against it. It is used less often of late because it is expensive and robust defensive precautions can cause there to be little return for the effort. Even so, the threat of someone stealing your tech or sabotaging research is enough to cause RPs to be spent in large numbers with only the occasional attempt at actual theft. Sabotage of research can also undo much of the espionage gains even if there are quite heavy defences. Espionage to learn more about a system and its pirate points is worthwhile if planning a campaign to take ground and can flank solid aerospace defences or lessen the risk to raid insertion.

One question we have is on the lower end of “success” results. For example, if the result of a “Sabotage: Turn Agent results in a -3 MoS it is still considered a partial success. That said we use common sense and note that you cannot ‘turn’ 25% of an agent. Instead the Spec Op teams gets the ‘success’ bonus for the mission (2/3 chance of living) but the agent is not turned. We generally set 50% success as the cut off in such cases. On the other hand, 25% success on Sabotage:Industry would reduce the factory by 25% of its RPs for the next turn only as the MoS is 0 or less. In this case the -22 RP for damaging a minor industrial planet would only drop the RPs by 5.5, round normally (FRN) to 6 RP. Note that the same attack on a major industrial world nets a drop of 4 RPs – chalk the difference up to more depth to the infrastructure. The same result with Sabotage Research would do 25% of 25% of current DPs.

In the case of Sabotage: Communications or Transportation the result would apply to the percentage of commands involved, again with FRN. So a 25% comms hit against two or three commands would still affect one command but if the target contains only one command there is no effect other than a better survival chance for the team.

Common sense should be the guide through most of these conditions.

Special and Black Ops

Special and Black Ops need careful handling as the teams die with a sickening regularity. Timing is everything but nothing protects teams from a string of bad luck (ie: 5 of 6 LC teams dying in a single month). We have started to see teams ‘prepositioned’ but inactive, put in place until prerequisite espionage bonuses are met then money is dumped into the mission to help counter very green or green penalties. You may only see one or two ops in a month but the attrition of teams drops significantly.

Terrorism is favourite target for Black Ops but this rule is bit confusing by mentioning two effects for a successful operation. I have included an example below for Worktroll to comment on in case we are not handling it correctly.

Terrorism Example - New Syrtis was hit by a successful B/O - Terrorism mission. As per the rule this affected its ‘elements’ (gov’t?) with a -25% (-10 RP) RP penalty for 4 months, at the same time the minor industry was down 50% (-12 RP) for 3 months due to the MoS of 3. Thus the attack reduced a 64 RP planet to 42 RP. A follow up operation to damage the factory could have reduced this to 32 as the industry would be temporarily reduced to the status of an ‘other’ system.

Yes? No?


Defensive Operations

Defensive operations are cheaper but knowing what to defend and when is part science and part art. Keeping track of who is conducting Espionage/Sabotage against your House is extremely important as it helps draw a picture if intent. Protecting the path to a planet can mean the difference between getting reinforcements in before the planet falls or the enemy assault is reinforced. The most versatile counter-intel missions are Planetary Force Security and Domestic Security. These two defensive operations cover a wide breadth of territory and Intel and Sabotage/Black Ops missions. That said,… only Factory Security will protect a factory and this can become expensive. Likewise, Tech is best protected by Tech Security by the appropriate class and again, effective defense is expensive.

Note that we clarified with Worktroll that Sabotage Research can only be done at the capital, otherwise attacking tech research would be too easy on the one hand and too expensive to defend against on the other.

Defensive operations deep in friendly territory are not always necessary all the time. It can take time for a Spec Ops team to get to a target well inside the border to try their hand at sabotage. If you dump RPs into deep defences every turn you may be spending money unnecessarily. If an opponent spends four months travelling into the interior to sabotage a minor industrial planet you may be better off to take the odd attack and save your money rather than defend that factory every month. One tactic we have seen is for interior systems to have randomly ‘rotating’ or ‘on-off’ defences. The cost of all the potential operations should not be under estimated, a balance needs to be struck between costs and potential for damage. An argument for new factories is that the starting factory locations are all known. Placing new factories in out of the way locations help defray the damage done by (deep) strikes against known targets. The enemy is also now confronted with the task of slow, meticulous searches for these new industrial sites.


In the end, with the exception of the aforementioned Propaganda section, the rules work well and the Spec Ops teams are worth ‘nurturing’ but don’t expect to see many regular or veteran teams running around. The amount of successful Sabotage and Black Ops missions they need to be promoted from very green is significant.

Diplomacy Phase

The Military Treaties are not backed by rules with consequences for breaking them so they are really just agreements of convenience. You certainly are not compelled to support an ally with whom you hold a military assistance treaty (as an example) but one could refuse to trade with the House that violates the treaty. However, that may be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face as the loss of RPs will be felt immediately when most needed.

Economic treaties are worth it and you should try to sign one with everyone you are not fighting. Our only change here was concerning trade with the three periphery states. While trade with an adjacent major House will be a great boon to the minor state it is unlikely the House will gain a reciprocal benefit with the much smaller economy. With this is mind the periphery state still gains the +10% adjacent and +5% distant bonus but the House will gain only +5% and +2% for trade with one of the three NPC periphery states. All the same, the RPs are nothing to sneeze if you have weak economies similar to the Federated Suns or the Capellan Confederation.

[epic]

Well, in my opinion,  if you are still denying defending garrisons their fighters you are drastically handicapping the defence and making the job for the raiders too easy. Tikonov,  for example,  rates 300 PV and in the Capellan's case this allows 2 wings each of light,  medium and heavy fighters. Raiding Tikonov is,  and should be, a major challenge and defences should need to be worn down substantially before two companies could launch a raid much less shutdown the entire planet for three months.

Detailed combat also adds a more realistic feel to the effort (BF or SBF).

Tikonov,  however, is an extreme example. A minor industrial world has only 100 PV plus the wings belonging to the command stationed there as well as the PV allowed from the Patrol, if one is in range. This makes raids challenging but not impossible.  :thumbsup:

Tikonov's a bad example, yeah; the amount of CCs that are already present there means that it already has the amt of necessary fighters. 

[epic]

Economic treaties are worth it and you should try to sign one with everyone you are not fighting. Our only change here was concerning trade with the three periphery states. While trade with an adjacent major House will be a great boon to the minor state it is unlikely the House will gain a reciprocal benefit with the much smaller economy. With this is mind the periphery state still gains the +10% adjacent and +5% distant bonus but the House will gain only +5% and +2% for trade with one of the three NPC periphery states. All the same, the RPs are nothing to sneeze if you have weak economies similar to the Federated Suns or the Capellan Confederation.

We were torn on this as well.  I also wanted to include tertiary powers as possible trading partners, such as the Oberon Confederation or the MH.  One could also argue that trade with the greater state may be detrimental to the smaller state's economy, due to the sheer size of the economies overwhelming and disrupting the smaller state's economy.

However, in the end, we left the Periphery States being able to trade as per the rules.  We were thinking for the future the following:

Successor State trading with Periphery power (MoC, OA, TC) - +5% for Successor state, or 1% if no border, +10 for Periphery, +5 if no border
Successor State with minor power (MH, OC, maybe Rim Collection when it appears, Lothian League, CF, MAYBE Illyrian Palatinate) 1% for Successor State with border, 0% if no border, and 15% for minor power if has border, 7.5 if no border.  Useful to establish trade still with a minor power if no border to perhaps build an npc political ally, or cause a thorn in the side of the other power. 
A Periphery power treating with Periphery minor powers would be a step down similar to a Successor State trading with a Periphery power; so they would gain 5/1% based on having a border, while the minor would get 10/5%

My players advocated that approach as it also gave some justification for NOT invading the Rim Collection, or other minor Periphery powers; even at 1% trade, it's better economically to leave them alone than to spend the RP conquering them.  It also gives the Periphery minors enough RP to justify the (admittedly miniscule) armies they have.  It also bumps the Periphery powers RP up a bit more too, which gives them a better chance of resisting a possible IS incursion. 

I didn't do it... and may be regretting my decision, as the LC conquers the Rim Collection and the Valkyrate (though the Valkyrate at least is putting up a fight). 

What I really wish for is something that could adjust the trade better.  House rules floated were:
- Bonus to trade treaties with Merchant King, while reducing the amount of RPs that it generates on its own.
- granting Booming Economy to a nation that gets enough trade treaties/maintains same
- varying the trade bonus per round (again, with a bonus for Merchant Kings) - 3d6 was floated as the trade bonus roll - with penalties for raids launched on that player (and bonuses for active Patrol missions)

[epic]

This rule set regarding Espionage and Spec Ops are some of best in ISaW. They add a depth to the strategic campaign without bogging the game down with too much "chrome".

Intel Operations Phase

Propaganda Operations

The biggest question we have is with the Propaganda Ops as they seem almost a guessing game. If you Disseminate Foreign or Domestic Disinformation (or even accurate information) that is not part of a target House’s own intel ops then it may be immediately obvious that it is propaganda. For example, if the FWL arranges to leak that the 1st and 5th Sword of Light have moved to Proserpina and the FS is not actually looking for them (Esp-Troop Location), or looking at Proserpina (Esp-Planetary Forces), or at military ops (Esp-Military Operations) in the area then the operation immediately stands out as propaganda. With a difficulty ratings of 4 and 5 the money for Propaganda might be better used elsewhere. Then again, perhaps we have missed something in the intended subtlety of the rules.

Espionage

Despite a few minor issues the rules are very much worth the learning. A well timed sabotage of communications, transportation or a successful system reconnaissance can make all the difference in a campaign for a planet. Establishing ‘agents in place’ is also a valuable tool, for both short and long game effects on espionage operations. Mole Hunting becomes popular weekend sport for aristocrats within the intel services.

Espionage operations focused on planetary forces and scouting industry is a versatile offensive op that opens the doors to more damaging sabotage or black ops. Espionage technology was a big hit until players learned to defend against it. It is used less often of late because it is expensive and robust defensive precautions can cause there to be little return for the effort. Even so, the threat of someone stealing your tech or sabotaging research is enough to cause RPs to be spent in large numbers with only the occasional attempt at actual theft. Sabotage of research can also undo much of the espionage gains even if there are quite heavy defences. Espionage to learn more about a system and its pirate points is worthwhile if planning a campaign to take ground and can flank solid aerospace defences or lessen the risk to raid insertion.

Re: Propanda and lateness.  This is one where perhaps WorkTroll can speak to it.  For us, we assumed something else:
Contingency plans.  Basically, an if/then situation. 
Example: Espionage action to ascertain troop location.  Contingency plan, Attack Order.
House Davion is annoyed by the 17th Galedon Regulars, which has been attacking their border with raids and a full assault 2 rounds ago.  Worse, the 17th are now Elite status due to significant combat and training, and are getting dangerous on the front lines. 
Earmarking the 1st and 2nd Crucis Lancers as well as the Davion Heavy Guards, based a jump away from where the 17th were last seen, all 3 units are placed on Attack orders and contingency battle (headhunt) orders.  If word is released via espionage actions that the 17th are at a particular location, then the assault begins.  (headhunt is a poor example, as the units mentioned are not mostly light, but bear with me).  All 3 units deploy to attack and destroy the 17th. 

However... a propaganda mission was done, revealing that the 17th was on one world alone (the nearby moon of Endor)... when in reality, an entire LEGION of the Draconis Combine's best troops awaits them on the moon of Endor!  (insert evil Emperor laugh).  3 Davion units destroyed.   
(a variant on this has already happened - in which the Patrol group moved to a different world and espionage revealed they had moved - so the attack forces then attack the world as soon as the Patrol group jumps away to their new location, as an Assault action instead, not knowing that the Patrol group wasn't moving at all, and ambushed them en route, attacking with 4 air wings to 2, and killing a good chunk of the Combat Command in space)

In our game, low cost espionage missions are happening constantly, in an effort to see what is happening on the border.  Domestic security is then feeding misinfo, but specific targeted hexes are often given a bit extra RP to give a better chance... or agents in place (short or long term) are granting additional bonuses. 

So... this required a bit of a rules extrapolation.  It required that we assume that the attack order is filed (so regardless of whether the assault happens, the units are spending combat supply and fatigue) and are acting on up to date intel THAT ROUND.  It also gives power to propaganda action.  Also, it gives Espionage: Military operations some use, as you can also see what the contingency orders of particular units are.  Note that issuing contingency orders to units can only be movement related or attack related (not Defend).  Due to the fact that an Espionage roll could feed misinfo, has the potential to massively backfire as well.   If no intel is given at all (failed esp roll and known, for instance) then the attack is aborted (no assault order) but the combat supply and fatigue is spent. 

So.  not entirely in the rules,  but it also allows players (as long as they realize they ARE paying combat supply and fatigue for that unit) flexibility to act.  It also means that a truly conniving player with appropriate espionage actions could see how different units are set to move/react on a front, and create a large-scale trap. 

It also corresponds with btech fluff and having regional commanders make decisions... sometimes to their detriment.  Basically, a contingency order is an order that isn't waiting for the HPG to get back to High Command at the capital to make a decision and then forward orders back.  It also works well with Pony Express rules. 

[worktroll]

Still going through this thread - my work life currently routinely includes meetings from 11:30pm to 9:30am - but the delay in getting intel results was quite deliberate.

Remember, the Successor Lords do not have the godlike view that players have, and bureaucracy is a real thing. So major operations do take time to build & prepare. How many times did the Brits attack the Tirpitz just after it left? And they were playing real-time ;)

Contingency orders: my gut feel (and it's a large gut) make me worry about complexity, and potential over-use. Imagine a border with everyone with contingency orders, triggering a chain reaction. While fun to watch, it doesn't fit the paradigm - certainly, until you're Clan, you just don't have the potential for real-time command & control implied.

Periphery states - I do like the general approach for making them worth paying attention to. But good on the Lyran player - taking control of the means of production ;) But on this scale, I can't see much room for genuine periphery state play. The trick would be to balance risk/reward vs. the trouble of curb-stomping them.

And  :-[ for the kind words on Intel Ops. Yes, propaganda IS a guessing game. It works best in a GM'ed game, when all players are actively espionaging left right & centre. You did 10 ops, got 7 titbits back from the GM, and reports on two failures. Which is real, and which is double-cross? Never ignore the potential for false-flagging friends, either ;)

Of course, if you don't do espionage, then you know it's all propaganda. But is that worth it ?

Re black ops - yup, they're like multi-combo moves in computer games. If you want good chances, preparation is not the thing, it's the main thing. Stack those modifiers, and maybe you'll see that team again. Maybe.

W.

[epic]

Still going through this thread - my work life currently routinely includes meetings from 11:30pm to 9:30am - but the delay in getting intel results was quite deliberate.

Remember, the Successor Lords do not have the godlike view that players have, and bureaucracy is a real thing. So major operations do take time to build & prepare. How many times did the Brits attack the Tirpitz just after it left? And they were playing real-time ;)

Contingency orders: my gut feel (and it's a large gut) make me worry about complexity, and potential over-use. Imagine a border with everyone with contingency orders, triggering a chain reaction. While fun to watch, it doesn't fit the paradigm - certainly, until you're Clan, you just don't have the potential for real-time command & control implied.

Yeah, see my edit, which didn't beat your post:

It also corresponds with btech fluff and having regional commanders make decisions... sometimes to their detriment.  Basically, a contingency order is an order that isn't waiting for the HPG to get back to High Command at the capital to make a decision and then forward orders back.  It also works well with Pony Express rules. 

I agree it does make for a messy border, but over-use hasn't happened because I force them to use combat supply and fatigue, which is expensive for something that may not even occur otherwise if no intel is given. 

[epic]

As for kind words: still think that most of intell section is just perfectly dead on.

[The Purist]

Still going through this thread - my work life currently routinely includes meetings from 11:30pm to 9:30am - but the delay in getting intel results was quite deliberate.

Remember, the Successor Lords do not have the godlike view that players have, and bureaucracy is a real thing. So major operations do take time to build & prepare. How many times did the Brits attack the Tirpitz just after it left? And they were playing real-time ;)

As we discussed this in the past I am in full agreement.  The "omnipotent player syndrome" had me move away from strategic level war games to more tactical games back in the 90s. I was into Advanced Squad Leader for years as it actually has a limited amount of OPS. Since moving overseas and finding ISaW it has breathed new life into our longggggg running Battleforce 2 game.

And it can all be done with excel,  PDF and word files if needed. That said, the small army of tokens purchased from Brian (scrapyard armoury) has made Adv BF - ACS via Skype a lot of fun.

Contingency orders: my gut feel (and it's a large gut) make me worry about complexity, and potential over-use. Imagine a border with everyone with contingency orders, triggering a chain reaction. While fun to watch, it doesn't fit the paradigm - certainly, until you're Clan, you just don't have the potential for real-time command & control implied.

Again,  I agree. In a game of this scope and in this setting this would elevate player omnipotence to anunacceptable level. No offence to our man, Epic.   :)

Periphery states - I do like the general approach for making them worth paying attention to. But good on the Lyran player - taking control of the means of production ;) But on this scale, I can't see much room for genuine periphery state play. The trick would be to balance risk/reward vs. the trouble of curb-stomping them.

This why mine are GM run. There isn't a periphery state on the map that could not be crushed by a modest campaign with just a half dozen commands moving at a slow but steady pace. With low industrial tech penalties they cannot afford to engage in long term combat with a house. Their economies in 3025 cannot handle the supply needs (even the OA would collapse).

I did add one GM run Comstar ROM team,  elite as hell,  tasked with holding back research. They cannot attack the same house twice in a row to avoid leaving a pattern and if discovered can place the blame on another faction.  Currently they are trying to block Industrial and Communication advancement by the Houses.  A bit of fun for me during this phase.

And  :-[ for the kind words on Intel Ops. Yes, propaganda IS a guessing game. It works best in a GM'ed game, when all players are actively espionaging left right & centre. You did 10 ops, got 7 titbits back from the GM, and reports on two failures. Which is real, and which is double-cross? Never ignore the potential for false-flagging friends, either ;)

Of course, if you don't do espionage, then you know it's all propaganda. But is that worth it ?

Don't blush,...you deserve a lot of credit for those rules.

When I go to the office tomorrow I will extract the orders from Mar 3020 and post them for you (info is now 3+ month out of date) . I think you will see the guys are quite busy with espionage. I admit that, for the life of me, I cannot get my head around the Propaganda bit. The feedback received so far is that the cost (difficulty rating and TN) make convincing misinformation tales hard to develop when they can be undone by good espionage for less money.

Re black ops - yup, they're like multi-combo moves in computer games. If you want good chances, preparation is not the thing, it's the main thing. Stack those modifiers, and maybe you'll see that team again. Maybe.

Preaching to the choir,  Brother Worktroll,  preaching to the choir. We used see six teams go out and die in droves with little to show for the investment. Now a turn where a House deploys three team is a busy month. Exceptions abound depending on player frustration levels but nurturing teams has become the standard.  I can almost hear the groans from here when teams,  painfully nursed up to regular are chopped,  even if wildly successful on the mission.  ;D

[The Purist]

I think I'll start a thread to run through ACS in a similar manner to the ISaW rules review ongoing here.  Once we get to the orders,  combat and end phase for ISaW there will be a lot of overlap with ACS.

Now,  if you'll  excuse me, I am leading my 1st Mechanised Brigade into its final battle on Alrescha in the morning and I need to sort the required tokens and fill out the formation sheet.

June 3020 has taken over two months to resolve,  very busy with combats everywhere but the CC-FWL border.  :thumbsup:

[Daryk]

The real strength of propaganda is in increasing ambiguity, not necessarily decreasing it in the wrong direction.  I don't want to go into rule 4 territory, but the current state of the world is all the evidence you need.

[worktroll]

Exactly. The need for a GM "Chinese Wall" is high. If you run it as "here's what came from your operations, oh, and here's two random titbits", it doesn't work as intended. If you get "here's seven results", and two of them have 7th SOL on opposite ends of the borders ... it's working ;)

[The Purist]

I understand what you are saying but I think the issue the guys are having with Propaganda may be linked to cost and the nature of the Espionage and Spec Ops being launched. Rather than look for specifics they seem to concentrate on general information. I'll try to encourage more attempts at Propaganda but it is really up to them.

Below is the interchange between the FWL and LC in March 3020. I don’t have a scanner at home so I can’t post the emails but I have copied and pasted the two messages to “L” and “S”.

House Steiner spent 122 RP on Spec Ops and 224 RP on Intel and Counter-Intel. Of the 4 Spec Ops launched (Sab-Turn Agent x 3 and Sab-Comms x 1) one attempt to turn a FWL cictizen failed but all four team survived. The 224 RP spent on Intel used 132 on defensive measures and 92 on Foreign Intel. The events were reported thus:

S***,
The results of the spec ops has resulted in gaining an new agent in both the FWL and the DC. In fact, events have transpired where in the next month you can use a -3 TN to either an Esp or Sab operation. All spec ops teams have reported in safe and sound.

Agents aboard scouts ships and working with your astronomy boffins have mapped out reasonable safe pirate points in the occupied Rahne system (2119) that should be usuable for the next six month. Agents have also located the following League troops on the targeted planets. Specific details of enemy commands can be found on the attached Annex A):

2121 – Gacrux; Steel Guards thought to be at approximately 65% strength
2120 – Vindamiatrix; 1st Marik Mil estimated at 75% supported by a garrison force of 4/3/1/1. However the garrison forces appear very weak with only 10% of their normal strength. This leads us to believe the system has been pacified.

(The pacification time had elapsed so S already knew this. The Maril Militia was actually at 100% strength).

2422 – Irian; 1st and 2nd Marik Reserve each at 100% and possessing 1/1/2/1/1 regiments. There is also a garrison of 4/3/1/1 also at 100% and the CV Group “Dauntless” of 1/1/3 at 50%
 
<<NB**everything but the garrison is “false”>>

2517 – Coriscana; Garrison forces only – 3/2/-/1 at 100% (garrison is actually 4/3/1/1 but as the table on page 368 is well known, inaccurate information needs to fit that table, or very close to it, to be credible).
2519 – Keystone; Garrison forces only – 2/1/-/2 at 100%
1331 – Luthien; 1st Rasalhague Garrison Cmd possessing 1/1/1/2 (no arty; 2 x A/S) all at 100%

Counter Intelligence operations have discovered FWL agents have been seeking information regarding troop strengths on Hesperus II and New Earth. What information they have gleaned is unknown

No other activity to report.

End.

At the same time L was preparing his next push against the LC defenses in the Isle of Skye and Rahneshire. In this case the FWL spent 79 RP on 3 Spec Ops, 27 RP on Foreign and 144 RP on Counter Intel operations. L’s report read like this:

L**

It is my duty to report that the Sab-Ind(ustry) against the Lyran capital was aborted before it could be carried out. Likewise, the team sent to Sab-Tran(sportation) at Hesperus II also aborted their mission. In both cases the reasons remain unclear. We can report a successful Sab-Tran operation against the Lyran transportation infrastructure in 2122 with the team safely recovered. 

<<in fact the Sab-Tran in 2122 was only 25% successful which did impact Lyran movement but not as much as the FWL had hoped>>

Your agents in the LC report making contact with at least two disaffected Lyran citizens who might be recruited by SAFE in the coming month should the resources be committed to turning them.

Agents have also located the following Lyran commands on targeted planets. Specific details of enemy commands can be found on the attached Annex A):

2019 - Hesperus II;  1st Royal Guards with 1/5/7/1/2 at 100%; 15th Lyran Guards with 1/4/5/1/2 at 100%; CV Grp “Defiant” with 1/2/2 at 100%

<<the large garrison was previously spotted by the FWL but not included in this report and FWL agents missed the 2nd Royal Guards (also with 1/5/7/1/2) entirely>>

2224 – New Earth; garrison only with 4/3/1/2 at 100%

2022 – Skye; agents confirmed this district capital remains a major industrial centre. Its three factories remain protected by both capital and standard fortifications.   

The Lyran intelligence services have expended a major effort in the past month seeking to learn the strength of FWL forces in the following systems:
2120 – Vindamiatrix
2121 – Gacrux
2422 – Irian
2517 – Coriscana
2519 – Keystone

What information these agents may have gained is unknown.

End.

So,  I try to keep information general except where players have requested  location specific targets.

[The Purist]

The military phase provide all the orders required to move and fight on the campaign map covering the Inner Sphere. There is quite a.  Lot to cover in these rules so they will be split into a number of posts to avoid information overload.  ;)

Military Phase

The strongest part of the game sequence design is the fact that all orders from economic to combat must be written in advance and that execution is simultaneous. This removes the ‘omnipotent player syndrome’ seen in so many war games. This makes for a level of tension and anticipation in the game while waiting for results of espionage and "fighting" orders. The Military Phase compels a player to not only be ready for this turn but to place his forces to react to tomorrow’s events today. At the same time there are many places where the rules as written are either contradictory or incomplete. This is no doubt the result of the lack of playtest and rush to production and another reason future ‘in-uni’ books might wish to dedicate a few pages to tighten up on these rules.

Each unit receives four (4) orders points per turn and the various orders use these points to execute orders.

Logistics Orders

Training (3 points)Buy low, train high(er). Unless being pressed to the point of strategic defeat consider purchasing really green, reliable commands in pairs as your standard. Then drop both on a training centre for three or four months before deploying the front. Keep in mind this is often easier said than done as ACS is a bloody combat system and commands can be destroyed quickly. If time is on your side they may reach regular status and you now have a steady stream of low cost regular commands rolling out of the training centers. We’ve seen both the low cost option and, in a few emergencies, a massive outlay of RPs for a reliable , regular command that charged straight into the teeth of an enemy offensive (and help win the battle) at the cost of extremely heavy damage.

Rest (2 points) - for commands that have managed to disengage while relatively intact and can be pulled back to safe areas ‘on planet’ this order is necessary to reduce fatigue. Two rest orders use all four orders points and reduce fatigue by two (2) points. Fatigue can be reduced by two other methods (discussed later), RP expenditure and a turn without movement or combat. Fatigue ramps up quickly on the ACS map and the Orders given to a command can increase fatigue further.

Repair (2 points) – a battered command, and there will be many,  that is still viable can be repaired for two orders points. If necessary a move order (see below) of one hex back combined with a repair order will repair some damage. A unit under repair is very vulnerable and has only 50% of its armour and S/M/L values if forced to fight. Unfortunately, the rule is silent on what happens if the 50% available armour is lost in combat. The implication is that the CU is destroyed, caught with its kit dismantled and its repair depots overrun. That is how we have interpreted the rule so we normally do our repairs “off world” unless there is a lot of cover available.

<<to be continued…>>

[The Purist]

The movement order rules are not overly complex but there are some issues with clarity and thorougness.

Movement Orders

The last sentence in the introductory paragraph is very important to future orders, both movement and combat. Keep that in mind as we go forward.


Transport Move (1 point) – Here is a rule that probably needs a re-write. The first sentence states that a movement order allows a command “to move one or more Interstellar Map Hexes.” It then goes on to state that only the ‘defend order’ (a defensive order explained below) may be used with a transport order.

This seems self-explanatory but the second paragraph then throws in a sentence where “If a Combat Command spends three or more Orders Points on Transport Move Orders, it may not issue any Offensive Orders, regardless of their cost.”

So which is it? Does a transport move order allow “one or more” hexes or does each hex require its own order. Thus far we have gone with one order per hex if only because this ‘seems’ to be the intent. We have also excluded any offensive orders from being issue with a transport move.

So,… if we are following things as intended transport move orders are required for each hex, and if three move orders are given no offensive orders can be given. It also takes one move to move a planet (discussed later), that said,  there is nothing that states this move uses an order point since it does not involve moving from one Interstellar Hex to another. Since moving to a planet is the point of movement (and combat) and the distance is very short in comparison we have assumed this final move does not require a move order. Therefore, CCs that moves three hexes could then move to the planet using its fourth IMP (another later rule  :)  ) but not its final orders point.

Finally, there is the second sentence of the third paragraph. It should probably have been written as “If a Command was in combat in a *previous* turn, it may not issue more than two Transport Move orders”. The logic for this is curious but it could be intended to show some sort of “friction” imposed on logistics for units extricating themselves from battle. We have used the rule as we think it was intended, “a previous turn”, but most of the time a unit withdrawing from combat uses only one transport move (but 2 IMP) to an adjacent hex and then a repair order (2 order points) so it hasn’t really mattered.

Assault Move ( 1 point) - if you plan to do more than sit on the defensive you need to do an assault move to attack an enemy held planet. As above this rule could use some clarification. The rule has been argued that an assault move can move from hex to hex to hex and then land on a planet to fight (3 Aslt Mv orders to move 3 hexes) but this would mean each aslt mv would also incur the 1 fatigue point earned for the move order. This seems a bit excessive especially when one considers that the entire first sentence is written in the singular, implying an aslt move moves one hex and then drops the commands in system for combat.

This effectively limits an assault move to within one hex of the jump off point, earns 1 Fatigue point and will cost “Combat Supply” in the following turn. This is the way we have gone as we believe this is the intended meaning of the rule – a big buildup of troops, aslt transport assets, logistics and then a jump to the target to begin the carnage.

<<to be continued>>

[epic]

The movement order rules are not overly complex but there are some issues with clarity and thorougness.

Movement Orders

The last sentence in the introductory paragraph is very important to future orders, both movement and combat. Keep that in mind as we go forward.


Transport Move (1 point) – Here is a rule that probably needs a re-write. The first sentence states that a movement order allows a command “to move one or more Interstellar Map Hexes.” It then goes on to state that only the ‘defend order’ (a defensive order explained below) may be used with a transport order.

This seems self-explanatory but the second paragraph then throws in a sentence where “If a Combat Command spends three or more Orders Points on Transport Move Orders, it may not issue any Offensive Orders, regardless of their cost.”

So which is it? Does a transport move order allow “one or more” hexes or does each hex require its own order. Thus far we have gone with one order per hex if only because this ‘seems’ to be the intent. We have also excluded any offensive orders from being issue with a transport move.

So,… if we are following things as intended transport move orders are required for each hex, and if three move orders are given no offensive orders can be given. It also takes one move to move a planet (discussed later), that said,  there is nothing that states this move uses an order point since it does not involve moving from one Interstellar Hex to another. Since moving to a planet is the point of movement (and combat) and the distance is very short in comparison we have assumed this final move does not require a move order. Therefore, CCs that moves three hexes could then move to the planet using its fourth IMP (another later rule  :)  ) but not its final orders point.

Finally, there is the second sentence of the third paragraph. It should probably have been written as “If a Command was in combat in a *previous* turn, it may not issue more than two Transport Move orders”. The logic for this is curious but it could be intended to show some sort of “friction” imposed on logistics for units extricating themselves from battle. We have used the rule as we think it was intended, “a previous turn”, but most of the time a unit withdrawing from combat uses only one transport move (but 2 IMP) to an adjacent hex and then a repair order (2 order points) so it hasn’t really mattered.

Okay.  Having run 2 smaller games and now the bigger one, we always figured that each move point was an order point; we further figured that the idea of 3 pts or more spent on move was more intended in preparation for additional rules - specifically, higher technology in transportation. 

We have also agreed that the final movement (in-system) to planets does not count as a move order/part of the transport points. 

In our first game, we also interpreted that the order points and time to planet impacted the ability to get TO the planet during an ACS turn. This impacted how many ACS rounds were left to conduct the invasion that round, and often created difficult invasions that did not get much of a chance to do anything before running out of supplies.  NOT recommended. 
(example: 1 assault order, 1 attack order spent, then time insystem meant that only 4 ACS rounds were left assuming only 1 jump away). 

In summary, I agree; this section needs a bit of a re-write due to a lack of clarity.  i think we are playing it as intended.

[The Purist]

We were doing this in a similar way for the first couple of turns but the rules actually helped here.

My suggestion is to keep it simple. We also need to look at the sequence of play of the ACS turn to see how the orders, IMP and ACS movement rules interact.

I think the easiest way for me to keep this straight, in my head at least, is by running through an example. Let’s assume the AFFS has two Commands, Command A is one hex away from an enemy planet with a second Command B two hexes away. Command A is given an Aslt Move and Attack Order (offensive) using 2 orders and 3 IMP. Command B is given two Transport Move orders and, since it cannot use offensive orders, issued also issued a Defend order (defensive) using 3 orders and 3 IMP.

The rules do not state that ‘impulse’ movement is used and despite our head canons assuming that CC A jumps into the target hex at the start of ACS turn 1 (deployment) and that CC B would arrive at during ACS turn 3 (deployment/reinforcement), this is not the case. Believe me, I see the fun in having troops arrive throughout the turn and racing to arrive on the planet before ACS turn 8 but let’s stick to the rules as written (at least for now).

On ACS turn 1 both CCA and CCB would deploy in the Zenith, Nadir and or Alternate (pirate) Zones. The ACS sequence of movement has recon executed first (none in this case), then aerospace movement, then ground movement. In our case we use a default of one week to a planet (2 ACS turns) so the dropship’s calculated movement rate is increased accordingly from 1 to 2 (the ASF wings are also increased as per the rules on page 319). This means the earliest the two Commands could land would be after the aerospace movement of ACS turn 2.

Now here some digging for the appropriate rule is required. As the ACS turns are already underway the landing on the PCM (planet) would be treated as reinforcements. This means the arriving troops could not actually be placed on the map until the deployment phase of ACS turn 3 (exception: Combat Drop; see pages 321-322). I’ll expand on the above example in the ACS Turn thread when we get to that part of the rules.    :)

[The Purist]

Combat Orders

These rules are pretty straight forward but they do need clarification where the rules have some gaps in their application. Combat Orders are broken into Offensive and Defensive categories.

Offensive Orders

Attack (offensive, 1 point) - Pretty straight forward and to the point, if you want to launch a ‘battle’ or ‘invasion’ you need to use this order, usually in combination with an Aslt Mv order. Attack incurs 1 Fatigue point and will engage combat supply requirements..

Note that it is possible to land on an enemy held planet without an attack order or aslt move but the commands are vulnerable to an “Attack of Opportunity” if the enemy is prepared (not as common as one would think) and has issued a ‘Defend’ order to one or more commands. We have seen this used with overwhelming numbers or when reinforcing a major battle carrying on from one ISaW turn to the next.

Planetary Raid (offensive, 1 point) – a raid is exactly what says it is. Two combat teams (companies) with two squadrons of ASF are sent out to harass the enemy and hopefully cost them some RPs. The actual mechanics of a raid will be discussed below under “Military Actions” so this bit is just about the order itself.

If the defender is not careful raids can be expensive. To the wise House leader there are countermeasures available (later rules) and when in place raids become much more difficult. Countermeasures in turn force Houses to resort to actions that will re-establish conditions where raiding becomes possible again. These conditions normally involve an offensive to disrupt the stability of the front and write down or destroy parts of the enemy’s defences. The pendulum swings back and forth between a stable front and one where raids can take hold and inflict some damage.

While the raid itself costs just 1 orders point, the rules are silent as to how far a command can raid and then recover its troops by the end of the monthly turn. The Movement and IMP system implies such attacks would be limited to one hex range due to the number of order points and IMPs a command may expend but this is not actually stated.

One could argue that a command based on Planet ‘a’ could launch a raid (offensive order) against planet ‘x’ for 1 point, aslt mv (move order) one hex in the opposite direction to planet ‘y’ and then use 1 order point to Attack (offensive order) the planet. By the definition of earlier rules a ‘transport move’ could not be used as this would prohibit the raid in the first place since no offensive orders may be used with transport moves.

The example is a bit strained but I think the point is clear. The rule as written does not provide players with enough details to avoid such confusion. If a raid must use an Assault Move order then raiding ranges would be reduced to just one hex and add a fatigue point to command in question.

Not being sure of the author’s intent the path chosen was to immobilize the command and impose the Transport Move limit of 2 order points (and 3 IMP) and thus two hexes on the raiding CTs. A third hex would disallow the raid. The command thus has one unused order point remaining. I have not been entirely comfortable with this interpretation but we put it to the vote and the majority went with the above.

My personal view is that the above 1 hex range sounds correct. A Raid order must be accompanied by an Aslt Mv order and this limits the Raid to an adjacent hex.

A Raid Order would be written something like this:

1st SOL 2032 (tr), raid (s), aslt  mv 2033 (to) – 2 op, 2 imp

Translated this becomes - The 1st Sword of Light in hex 2032 (Tripoli) assault moves to 2033 (Royal) and executes a Supply Raid. Two order points, Two IMPs.

Combat Supply is triggered and the Command picks up 1 Fatigue for the Assault Move. 

No fatigue is earned for the Raid itself.

For anyone with more knowledge of the intent of the rule their input would be welcome.


Counter-Insurgency (offensive, 1 point) – should an enemy go to ground this command helps root them out but this is an order that may not be needed except in rare cases. While obtaining hidden status (later rule) is quite possible, retaining it is very difficult if the opposition has aerospace units and can deploy two or more recon formations.

That being said, when necessary COIN combined with a regular recon formations from commands with attack orders and ASF wings will usually quickly round up all hidden formations and finish them off. The cost is combat supply and 2 Fatigue points.

Guerilla Warfare (offensive, 1 point) – Also a rare order in our experience. A command caught in a battle or invasion that requires “Going-to-Ground” will be unlikely to obtain or retain hidden status for long. With all things considered, doing so until ACS turn 8 is most certainly asking for miracles. Since most battles between roughly equal forces see entire commands wrecked in 3 to 5 ACS turns, with mangled CUs in formations breaking/routing/retreating away (if they can manage to disengage), going to ground is not easy. This makes Guerilla Warfare very difficult to arrange. As with COIN the use of aerospace and ground recon makes ‘going-to-ground’ in the hope of launching a guerilla war in a following turn very, very difficult. We have not had a successful, worthwhile example in 16 game turns.

Shield (offensive, 0 points) – A useful order but another that has proven extremely hard to implement. The order applies to an entire command rather than just a few formations in hexes on the PCM or planetary maps. This adds another complication. The shielded formations must stack with the shield formation which puts the shield at an immediate disadvantage due to stacking limits (16 CUs). Movement is also done by formation so it is entirely possible for ‘shield’ and ‘shielded’ to be in two separate hexes when engaged. If the shield formation is engaged by the enemy before being reunited with the shielded formation, or vis-versa, how is the rule to work? A shield order is supposed to make attacking the ‘shielded’ Formation impossible and the shielded formation is also supposed be incapable of fighting. That said, what if the shield formation is destroyed or routes away, exposing the shielded formation? This is not covered in the rule.

However, ‘Shield’ can work when both sides have large numbers of commands on a planet (our Kessel campaign) and the shielded Formations can be hidden. If one side is outnumbered you may lose both the shield and shielded formations despite the intent of the rule (our DCs experience with the 2nd and 14th Legion of Vega). We have found no way to justify not being able to attack a known shielded unit that no longer has a shield. To cover such events we have applied the regular rule limitations on the shielded unit, ie: repair Restrictions or cancelled rest orders, etc.

Shield costs 2 fatigue points and twice the regular combat supply costs. Thus a command with a basic supply of 11 would need 88 RPs (basic supply x4 for combat supply x2 for shield). Another reason Shield has seen little use.

Commerce Raid (offensive, 1 point) -  a motivating order more than a threat as it can be easily countered by commands placed on planets that possess at least a PV value 50% of the raiding command. Patrols also block Commerce Raids.

Commerce Raids trigger combat supply for the command but no Fatigue.

This means using a command large enough to force the defender to deploy sizeable commands on industrial worlds and (district) capitals will require a large outlay for combat supply. Commerce raiders and Commands to defend against them tend to tie down regular House Commands on both sides of the border  (as they probably should).

That said, once the enemy has placed commands on his high value worlds and employed a few patrols the damage inflicted plummets and commerce raiding becomes more sporadic. Raiding becomes a guessing game as both sides try to ascertain when a commerce raid might be successfully launched or when a patrol is needed to block one. With a GM, players will not even know if their raids were successful, they only know when and where a Commercial raid has actually hit them and caused the loss of RPs.

Summary for Offensive Orders

Attack, Planetary Raid (more on raids later) and Commerce Raid, are the main tools of the offensive. COIN, Guerilla and Shield are possible but conditions to apply them effectively can be tough to establish. Thus far we haven’t seen too much use of the latter three orders but I am surprised now and again. Mileage may vary, of course.

<<to be continued>>

[The Purist]

Defensive Orders

Defensive commands are easier to apply but again, if you are not expecting an attack the cost in RPs and fatigue for a permanent ‘stand to’ is simply not possible. However, if your intelligence efforts point to an attack on a planet defensive orders can assist in the defence at the cost of some operational and sometimes tactical flexibility.
 
Fortify (defensive, 1 point) – this order pins a command’s formations in the hex they are in but enemy damage is reduced by 10%. Unlike the defend order (below) it does not restrict tactical choices and is thus worthwhile if you need to defend a fixed position such as a factory, capital or spaceport on the planetary map. The trade-off is that otherwise slow units such as aslt Mechs, aslt armour and artillery can waltz up to the objective without harassment and begin pounding the defence. The fortified Formation cannot be reinforced by other units from the same command as any Ground Formation in the command that moves voids the order for the entire command.

This seems a strange restriction but the rule in this case is very clear – “If a fortified Combat Command moves, it loses all benefits”. One would have thought the restriction would apply to a Formation, the status of which could be tracked on the record sheet without too much fuss. On the other hand, Orders are given to Commands, not Formations so the rule is consistent in that sense. 

It costs combat supply and 1 Fatigue point to build the fortifications, plus the regular basic supply for the unit that turn. If combat occurs in the same turn a command fortifies, the cost to fortify and fight would be 2x combat supply plus the additional fatigue for any other order or ACS turns in combat. The benefits of ‘Fortify’ accumulate with other orders such as Dig-In and Defend (below). That said, “Digging-In” is cheaper and gains the same benefits so Fortify may not be used by many.

Dig-In (defensive, 1 point) – Digging in costs less in RPs and fatigue but gives the same benefits as Fortify. The command must pay its regular supply in addition to other supply costs to dig-in or maintain the entrenchments and subtracts -10%from damage received. Digging in does not add any fatigue to a command other those normally imposed for being in combat or from other orders so it is in many ways better than fortify. The effects are cumulative with Defend (below).

Defend (defensive, 1 point) – This order is another head scratcher. It offers certain bonuses but in many other ways is a potential detriment to the command.

The bonus comes from a reduction by 10% of damage received and being able to get in an extra round of combat against an enemy landing on the planet that used a transport move (the ‘attack of opportunity, page 312). This can be damaging as the tables on page 308 gives such an attack a -2 to the to-hit TN. That said the drawbacks may make the AoO (attack of opportunity) not worth the handicaps.

Defend imposes a decrease in base damage inflicted by -10% by the command but at the same time the command may only use “defensive tactics”. Unfortunately, “Defensive Tactics” (page 316) are used to lessen damage received but does nothing to (directly) increase damage inflicted. Solace can be taken here in that the -2 to-hit TN can make the applying defensive tactics easier but there are risks, some that are serious, should the attack “fail”. Finally, the formations committed to an AoO are now locked in combat for the actual first game turn, probably a fair distance from support, and will need to win an end phase “engagement control” DR to withdraw. Not necessarily a promising start to the battle if outnumbered. That said, with some luck, or mistakes by the opponent, the formations so attacked could be savaged. Maybe….

That’s the risk of using the AoO.

If a command forgoes an AoO and uses “Defend” along with “Fortify” or “Dig-in” the base damage received can be reduced by a 20% but the Formations in the command are immobilized if they want to retain this benefit. The tactical restrictions (only ‘Defensive Tactics; page 316)  are still there which means the formations need to be in close to make “Defensive Tactics” more usable (and avoid further hurting your own combat abilities). This sounds counterintuitive,…and it is. Closing the range to implement defensive tactics means the enemy is more likely to score their own hits supported by even mildly “aggressive” tactics, which can offset the decrease in damaged received by the formation's own defensive tactics.

It can work, make no mistake but it is very tricky because “tactics” are chosen (during attack declaration) before the range is known. If the range determined by the manoeuvre DR ends up at medium or long range then ‘defensive tactics’ bonuses are very hard to implement as the to-hit numbers are so much more difficult to 'score' with at longer ranges.

For those of you with blank stares out there I will post an example of a full ACS turn over in the ACS thread once the review of the rule set is complete.

Defend is a rule with complicated nuances that needs a thorough understanding to avoid having it backfire on the defence.

The Defend order imposes combat supply on the following turn but Fatigue is only earned if there is actual combat.

<<to be continued>>

[The Purist]

Defensive Orders, continued

Going to Ground (defensive, 1 point) – as the order implies a command that is facing a lot of trouble may want to ‘go to ground’ but this is easier said than done. The first issue is that you almost need to be clairvoyant to know that you are in trouble before trouble arrives. Once you are staring trouble in the face it is often too late to go to ground unless the opposition lets you. This is mainly due to the need to survive a potential 8 ACS combat rounds that make up a month. The side winning the battle can often deploy the necessary recon formations supported by AS support to spot the formations that may try to ‘go dogo’ and mop them up in combat. What little might remain at the end of turn 8 may not be worth the effort of issuing the order the following month (the next ISaW turn).

A command that goes to ground rolls on the table on page 357 and that percentage of the survivors can go to ground. Of the remaining CUs 50% of the balance lost to attrition and 50% surrender (free salvage for the winner). The command may also lose morale (and face surrender/desertion) as well as automatically becoming ‘unsupplied’, with the usual implications in ACS for future battles under Guerilla Warfare, COIN and “Sustained Neglect”. There is also nothing to stop the enemy troops on the planet from using normal recon rules for hunting survivors as the rules do not cancel the benefits and limitations faced by hidden units under the constraints from the ‘hidden formation’ rules on page 315.

Fatigue is earned normally from other orders and ACS combat. 
 
Scatter (defensive, 1point) – a drastic order with the following restrictions – commands “may not engage in any of the following Orders: Training, all Movement orders, all Offensive orders except Guerilla Warfare”. Scatter is also tough to implement for many of the same reasons as ‘going-to-ground.

Scatter is intended to avoid orbital bombardment but it has other uses similar to going-to-ground (but better). Once discovered by COIN operations, fighting is handicapped by paragraph three of the rule which states that commands that scatter can only be used in recon formations. This may seem a benefit but recon formations are at a handicap in engagement control (see SBF/ACS).  Once engaged by the COIN formations, recon formations usually come out the worse for wear even with both sides reducing damage inflicted by 50%.

All the same time if a rescue force can be sent quickly, a command may survive scattering. If you can launch the relief force the same turn the other command ‘Scatters’ this order may be better than going to ground. By Scattering, losses to attrition can be recovered without effecting experience.

Scattering adds 1 to Fatigue and the command must pay combat supplies if it can be pushed through enemy lines.

Patrol (defensive, 1 point) – a worthwhile order to counter enemy (commerce) raiding and potentially help defend planets. Patrols add 25% of their aerospace PV to any planet within two hexes (at the Zenith or Nadir Points on the SSRM) and add a -2 to raid insertion DR (later rule). Depending on their size, when combined with other defenders, Patrols can affect both raiding and planetary attacks. Overlapping patrols can be very serious threat to enemy incursions.

As Patrols trigger combat supplies, smaller purpose built commands are best used for this order. The command also picks up 1 Fatigue point each turn on Patrol but this can be reduced by various methods.